| Author |
Topic |
136 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2012 : 2:13 PM
|
Interesting to note that the more controversial IPP in our area are not on rain-fed streams (Ashlu, Rutherford, Pemberton Valley, proposed Lillooett @Keyhole) and/or not downstream of big lakes (all of the above, Big Silver/Shovel/Tretheway).
quote:
Chilliwack River's hydrograph is actually used as characteristic of many other Coastal streams in introductory hydrology classes because it has rain-dominated peaks.
Not really a good argument – maybe textbooks need an update 
quote:
Because of this high potential for wasted money…
As long as its only money that is wasted … and no abandoned exploration/construction sites, closed roads etc.
quote:
Their access to the canyon itself is unimpeded.
There are a couple of easier kayak runs above the Box Canyon. The ‘Play run’ and the ‘Mine run’. I haven’t been up there after the project went in but have paddled the Play run and lower part of the Mine (called Mini-Mine, class IV) taking out at the bridge at MM25 after running a drop called ‘Last Tango’. The dam site is about 1.5 km upstream, the Mini-Mine run is gone and people running the Mine usually take out at the dam. Edit: This means that 1.5 km of a river run (essentially one run that used to be paddled frequently) is not available any more. http://www.liquidlore.com/bc/mine/
With ‘character is diminished’ I didn’t mean the access roads but the structures which have been put in and near the river (and which of course are much more visible to kayakers)
While I don't disagree with Stoked's statement the access for hikers/mountaineers has improved on the Ashlu, this may not always be the case – if I remember correctly, there have been access problems in Powell River in connection with an IPP, also some access issues in the Pemberton Valley?
|
Edited by - ClauS on 01/21/2012 11:14 AM |
|
|
100 Mile House, BC
Canada
176 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2012 : 2:16 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dru
quote:
Originally posted by weedWhacker
if run of the river projects are such a good way to generate power, why isn't BC Hydro allowed to build them?
Because of this high potential for wasted money, the government decided that this was probably a better role for venture capital (which can accept such losses) than public money.
But it's ok for BC Hydro to waste $millions on un-needed IPP power? I guess they just put the losses into a handy deferral account. |
|
|
 | Dru
Mountain Grammar Police
|
 Sardonic sandbagging scoundrel, Cascade Climbers lobotomized spraymeister, space blanket flyer, new millennium vulgarian betaboy and friend to all squids
Climbing, a mountain
Canada
∞ Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2012 : 2:30 PM
|
It's hardly unneeded power. Plus they can sell what they don't use onward the spot market, and the rain-fed coastal streams generate the maximum excess power during winter storm events, which is when demand peaks elsewhere in NA. Also they can let less water flow through their own large valley bottom reservoirs during the same period and so keep more stored for when it is needed at other times.
There is even talk of using excess energy generated to pump into high reservoirs, which is interesting since the grid is currently very short on storage.
One of the neatest side effects of smart metering and a wholesale adoption of plug-in electric cars across the continent would be the ability to use the car batteries as a distributed storage network. |
Edited by - Dru on 01/19/2012 2:33 PM |
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
874 Posts |
|
3022 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2012 : 12:59 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eryne
Cambium - what's your address? I can send you some earplugs.
 very funny. |
|
|
North Vancouver, BC
Canada
1263 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2012 : 09:09 AM
|
So it seems what we need is gauranteed contractual work with all guidelines enforced to do the least amount of devastation to the envionment, while building any IPP. Too often there is some political nitwit who allows discrepancies to be swept under the rug and the enforcement is too lax.
I like the access to the back country that the IPP and /or logging and / or mining roads create, as do all hikers and kayakers . Twould be nice if all sides in the arguements for any construction project would just stick to the truth and not put their slanted bias on it. |
|
|
|
Mysterious, pop can stove stashin', gps totin', overnighter virgin, wannabe tentmaker and foul weather wuss who rides a thumper to the trailhead with wonderdog Max to hike the Chilliwack Valley
Chwk
Canada
4910 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2012 : 09:59 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by weedWhacker
But I am trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, at least until even more of Christie Clark's family ends up in court again.
ROFL... |
|
|
136 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2012 : 9:36 PM
|
quote:
I like the access to the back country that the IPP and /or logging and / or mining roads create
There is lots of examples when “IPP/Logging/Mining = improved access” did not work – that’s when/why the outdoor users need to speak up.
|
|
|
North Vancouver, BC
Canada
1263 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2012 : 2:53 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by ClauS
quote:
I like the access to the back country that the IPP and /or logging and / or mining roads create
There is lots of examples when “IPP/Logging/Mining = improved access” did not work – that’s when/why the outdoor users need to speak up.
What I meant was improved access for those of us who do not wish to walk the extra 15 miles to get to the trailhead of our next foray.( Clear creek hot springs as an example) Still you have a point . I just wish the contracts being handed out had a strict policy of compliance . |
|
|
100 Mile House, BC
Canada
176 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2012 : 11:13 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dru
It's hardly unneeded power. Plus they can sell what they don't use onward the spot market,
It looks to me like a lot of IPP power is not needed in BC.
Also, BC Hydro can export on the spot market, but the price they get appears to be lower than what they are paying for the IPP power.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Stand up for Harrison Lake Area
